Huh? Not sure what this has got to do with anything, but yeah CERN is very good example of hard empirical evidence. Replicability is a standard criteria in the scientific method because it is known that scientific experiments give variable results, so we replicate the experiment n number of times and then through statistical analysis show whether certain results are significant.

CERN found faster than light particles----Proved to be wrong.
And you said a single experiment would change our view.
Obviously not.
Either politely concede or do not say anything about this matter anymore.
Do not twist your own words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua A

There is tons of empirical evidence, comprising marinearchaeology, scientifric dating, satellite imagery, archeoastronomy, DNA studies which supports OIT and not AMT/AIT. In fact in the end this evidence decided whether a linguistic theory is valid or invalid.

Where is this evidence?
Could you post it? I have been told there is tons of evidence earlier in this thread, and I still have not seen a single bit.
Please post the evidence and come up with a VIABLE model, if you cannot, this discussion is over, because you fail to provide what you yourself are asking for.
And strangely DNA speaks against OIT, but again, you only seem interested in evidence that supports your claims, not evidence that actually is there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua A

Bad argument. It is entirely possible that the Rig Vedic people migrated out from India Westwards. There is also good motive for the migrations, due to climate change the Saraswati river had begun to dry up, forcing many to migrate to new locales. We find the appearance of most of the IE tribes around that timeframe. In fact the very first IE tribes we find are the closest to Sanskrit with Mittani kings with Sanskrit names appearing in Western and Central Asia - the oldest IE language are the closest to Sanskrit. The further Westwards we go the further away it becomes from Sanskrit. This fact is entirely consistent with the hypothesis of OIT of an East to West migration over several generations, the more it moves away from the India homeland the more features and inflections it loses.

This proposal is completely against Archaology and Linguistics.
You would need a migration prior to 6000 BCE and that is totally out scope and contradict any archaeological Data.
Funnily, there is a Living language that seems even more archaic than Vedic Sanskrit, and it is still spoken in Europe.
But as you have shown, your knowledge of Linguistics is absent at best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua A

The DNA studies are unanimous there have been no mass migrations of European DNA into India in the last 10,000 years. The Indo-Aryans and the Dravidiains are the same stock of people, there is no significant difference in their DNA. Therefore we have hard scientific evidence now that the Indo-Aryans were in India till 10,000 years back - which clearly makes India the homeland of PIE.

There are several studies that claim otherwise, and I posted some here.
Again, you fail to back up you claims.
Total fail of objectivity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua A

Loads of empirical evidence, we will discuss it - but after seeing how you have consistently ignored evidence given by Gauda - I am not sure I want to invest too much time in somebody who will not actually engage with the evidence when presented to them.

Where did he post that evidence?
And I will not invest time with someone who accuses other people of fraud and
comes up with sunken continents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua A

You have not provided a single satisfactory refutation for the Saraswati argument. The argument is simple: The Sarwaswati is described by the Rig Vedic people as a mighty, glorious, largest and extant river. They have described the geography of the Saraswati and its course. There are dozens of hymns addressed to Saraswati in praise of it. The later generations of the Vedic people now describe the river as beginning to dry up and express concern. Therefore it is blatantly obvious the Rig Vedic people were around when the Saraswati river was a thriving river. The Vedic people had observed it when it was thriving and later when it was drying up.

You totally failed at comprehensing my argument.
Prove to me that every single bit of mythology in the RV comes from IA speakers. You cannot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua A

Your refutation that the Rig Vedic people arrived in India and inherited the legends of Saraswati from the IVC people is asinine and does not at all explain the textual evidence. If we take your assumption to be true it means the Vedic Aryans arrived in India and then they started composing hymns to a dead river, and knew the course of this dead river and lied about it being thriving. Then the same Vedic people started later recording how a long dead river is starting to dry up.

Again, it seems not possible to you to comprehend my argument.
They easily could have adopted elemants from an older mithology and it amalgated with their own. You also fail to explain why there were 2 sacred rivers. You also seem to forget that Saraswati also is a deity.
Most of the early himns cannot be said to refer to either the goddes ot the river.
I cannot help but you put a lot of faith into a mythological book whichs is ambigous at times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua A

We can clearly see your ridiculous explanation does not fit the data - so you are twisting the data to make it fit your explanation rather than revising your explanation to the the data. I see clear evidence of dishonesty.

I see that you have to post a single point of evidence for OIT.
I know that the intelligent poster can see that.
And where am I twisting the Data?
Either provide evidence or apologise, otherwise it is impossible to discuss with you. What a cheap Ad Hominem.
And who is "we"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua A

So I ask again do you know of any cases where linguistics has given wrong predictions?

I do not know of any atm, but there surely were.
Most sciences fail at times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua A

Why did the other IE cultures not write their own Vedas? Why is it only the Indo-Aryans that composed Vedas? The Indo-Aryans were obviously the most special out of the group: They composed tomes of literature and their Sanskrit retained the most inflictions and features.

"Das war also des Pudels Kern!"
So you believe in Indo-Aryan exceptionalism?
You do know that the RV saw mostly inherited orally before being written down? And that other IE people had their stories, too?
And that they did not mention coming out of India?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua A

It is hardly a surprise the Iranians have a cognate for Saraswati, we know Avestan and Sanskrit are the closest, they are only different by a dialect. However, the Saraswati river as described in the Rig Veda can only be in India, because it describes the geography, fauna, flora of India. Besides, I thought you were arguing the Rig Veda was composed in India?

It was written down in India, as I said, but where the different elementsactually come from is up to debate.
And yes they also have a sacre river, which obviously is not the same as the Saraswati.
The Claim that the Indian Saraswati is the source of this mythological element is baseless speculation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua A

From what I understand you are saying the Rig Veda was composed entirely in India. So now all that remains is for you to show evidence that the Indo-Aryans "arrived" in India and the date of this arrival. Don't give me "I don't know when they arrived" that is total nonsense. It is your burden of proof to show the Rig Vedic people migrated to India - give me hard empirical evidence that fits the data - not pages of rhetoric.

I gave you hard empirical evidence, take a stroll trough this thread, and read thes sources I and others posted.
And no, it is you burden of proof that OIT, because it is not the Mainstream view, and totally lacks any support. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
You always ask me for proves, I bring them, you ignore them.
I ask you for proofs, I get hot air. You claim you have given evidence.
Who is relying on rhetorics?
Come up with what you ask for, or otherwise I will stop discussing with you, because it does not make sense to discuss with someone who blatantly fails as providing evidence for his claims.

Einharja you need to relax, your ways of communicating are poor at best and you use alot of disrespectful language. You claim there are no evidences for OIT but there are.

As people dont seem to be fond of reading articles around here anymore and its just attack each other, here is the conference lecture that was done by Nicholas Kazanas, a greek linguist and indologist. A former AIT and then a OIT supporter:

Not sure if people have already viewed this but its interesting arguements for OIT.
If people want to actually get to the truth i suggest it be done by debating on one point at a time and once resolved or agreed to disagree (as it seems things can be interpreted differently with equal justification in some places).

Doctor of Philology, professor M. I.Zakiyev: «In an official Indo-European and Soviet historical science all of them (Scythian tribes. - M. T.) not on the basis of synthesis of linguistic, mythological, ethnological, archaeological and historical data, and only proceeding from separate linguistic conclusions, are recognized iranian language, in particular, as ancestors the Ossetian. Then that in such extensive region of Eurasia under the general name Scythians, Sarmatians, аlans (experts) during one thousand years and one thousand more years AD lived BC ancestors the Ossetian, and at the beginning of the II millennium AD they were extraordinary quickly reduced (or accepted Turkic language) and remained in a small amount only in the Caucasus … (highly in mountains, with the corresponding mountain ethnoculture, to the 20th eyelid, at all without suspecting, about the "former" nomadic origin, some, so-called "experts" yet didn't "explain". - M. T.).
The opinion on an iranian language of Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans doesn't come true historical development or assimilations of the people. If in such extensive region of Eurasia as iranist assume, during not less than two thousand years there lived iranoyazychny Ossetians, that, naturally, they, suddenly, on "arrival" from where Huns completely wouldn't disappear or immediately wouldn't turn into Turkic peoples is on the one hand, with another - and Turkic peoples if didn't live in these regions earlier, couldn't already in VI century create in the extensive territory from coast of the Pacific Ocean to the Adriatic Sea Great Turkic Kaganat. … Besides, if Scythians and Sarmatians would be iranian language, Assyrian, Greek, Roman, Chinese ancient historians could pay to it attention, after all, they well represented both Persian Iranians, and Sarmatian Scythians, i.e. at the description of these people they somehow surely would note similarity or proximity of the Persian and Scythian languages (as during the ancient period of a divergence between languages of one group yet weren't considerable. - M. T.)
But at ancient writers we don't find even a hint on it. At the same time there are a lot of cases of an identification of Scythians, Sarmatians and Alan with various Turkic tribes. At last, if in extensive territories of Eurasia under the general name the Scythian and the Sarmatian lived one only iranian language tribes, from where appeared then, suddenly, Slavic, Turkic, Finno-Ugric nationalities. It is necessary to ask an ironical question only: can be, they fell down from space?! Thus, even the general view on results of Scythian and Sarmatian studies of iranist shows that in the tendentiousness they came into limits of unreality, indemonstrable irreality and artificiality». (M.I.Zakiyev, 1995).

Last edited by ki-en-gar from ki-en-gir; December 4th, 2012 at 05:34 PM.

About same known Russian historian D. N. Verkhoturov speaks also: «If to trust the Iranian theory, from it follows that about the middle of I thousand AD Turkic peoples "left" from Altai, quickly grasped and made turkic huge «the Iranian world», and made it so well that didn't remain any traces and fragments of the old world. Meanwhile, absolutely clearly that formation of so extensive Turkic world took the millennia. There is absolutely certain archaeological complex of the steppe people, first of all subkurgan burials in wooden fellings, burials with a horse, etc. which in archaeological materials of a steppe strip of Eurasia are absolutely accurately closed by continuity with culture of undoubtedly Turkic people. The beginning of this continuity leaves at least by the beginning of I thousand B.C.».

Zakiev: "«Explanations which modern science about it gives, don't arrange categorically. Scythians Sarmatians (according to statements of iranist Sarmatians too allegedly "replaced" "iranian language" – M. T.). From mysterious Asian open spaces these Sarmatians – the incalculable horse hordes from head to foot chained in the iron reservation suddenly gushed., It seems, they for any absolutely unclear reasons so hated Scythians (for what, actually?!) that solved limes them at the roots and with all eagerness were accepted to performance of this task. Here Scythians also "disappeared". However, this hypothesis at all doesn't explain, how so left that Scythians obediently sat at the centers and waited, when will come to cut out them is universal awful Sarmatians. It would be more logical, considering that Scythians owned incalculable horse herds, to assume that they amicably jumped in saddles and skipped away far away from a such misfortune, fairly assuming that Sarmatians will pursue hardly them to «the last sea».
However about amicable leaving of Scythians to the west the science rejects the thesis. Why – it and itself plainly to explain unable. Rejects – and all here. Therefore the evasive formulation was born: Sarmatians replaced Scythians. More detailed explanations it is not given … Where Scythians? And their Sarmatians replaced! How? Scientific people answer you with scientific language: r-e-p-l-a-c-e-d!... Each time the next unlucky wanderers "disappear" in absolutely mystical way: here just on rather big space the numerous people with cattle and smithies, with tsars and the nobility lived, with children and members of household – and suddenly "disappeared". And the word is historians write, without reddening, with such look, as if this in itself explanation. Where Scythians? And they disappeared. How? How? Russian the academician explains to you: d-i-s-a-p-p-e-a-r-e-d!... "
I'll write: Not only russian academician...
Read and look at yourself.

Last edited by ki-en-gar from ki-en-gir; December 4th, 2012 at 06:16 PM.

Not sure if people have already viewed this but its interesting arguements for OIT.
If people want to actually get to the truth i suggest it be done by debating on one point at a time and once resolved or agreed to disagree (as it seems things can be interpreted differently with equal justification in some places).

Regards

Thank you for that, I had not seen that yet. It goes to show that not all OIT proponents are Indian nationalists, this man is a Greek scholar who was a former proponent of AIT.

Like I said earlier to accuse anybody who supports OIT of being an Indian nationalist is the lowest common denominator. I see it at the same level as trolling(To anybody who gets called this because they are supporting OIT, please report it to the moderators)

The evidences presented in the video are conclusive. The Proto-Indo-Europeans were in India. They spread East to West, taking their language, culture and customs with them. The further they traveled away from India the more linguistic features their language lost. The closer they were to India the more linguistic features their language retained. The fact that Avestan retains the most being the closest to India validates this.

AIT is at best pseudoscience and at worst colonial propoganda. The video shows that the colonial scholars were already making up ancient invasion theories of India long before Muller created AIT - first they proposed the Egyptians and the Sumerians invaded India just because they had similar caste systems. Then Muller basing his theory on biblical history proposed AIT.
This is the man that is on record saying he wants to "uproot Indian civilization" and "convert it to Christianity"

The dates they have come up for Indian history are completely arbitrary, it's almost like they pulled them out of a hat. How did Muller know the Aryans arrived in 1500BC, then wrote the Vedas in 1200BCE? It was based on, believe it or not, an ancient Indian ghost story(!) and the Christian creation story that the world began in 4004BCE!

We have been duped by these religious fundamentalists nutjobs for more than 150 years. It is time to rewrite history.

Plane of actions of thieves =kolonizators is identical everywhere: These schemers didn't believe uniform second neither in god nor in the devil, but first of all imposed to ethnoses Heretical Christianity (a Catholicism or Orthodoxy) for imposing of SLAVISH PSYCHOLOGY to SEPARATE the real God from people laying of selling intermediaries. Exactly so occurred in Russia for which German falsifiers wrote certain "history" of a certain Russia which NEVER was actually. This distortion of history occurred in Catherine II board. And in 100 years prior to Ekaterina II Greek priests persuaded the tsar Moscow to take up a title of incompetent God. Like the Egyptian and pharaon. They were that... "adherents" of God. It is more best nothing they and now. The lie flies from their lips without being late.